NEW DELHI, October 3, 2024 – In a significant development, the Supreme Court of India has issued a stay on a recent order by the Madras High Court that directed an investigation into the activities of the Isha Foundation, led by spiritual leader Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev. This decision came into effect early this morning, marking a temporary reprieve for the foundation amidst allegations of misconduct.
The Supreme Court’s intervention occurred after the Isha Foundation approached it, challenging the Madras High Court’s order which had initiated a police probe into claims of brainwashing and illegal confinement at the foundation’s yoga center in Coimbatore. The apex court’s decision effectively transfers the case from the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court to itself, halting any further police action based on the earlier order.
The Supreme Court’s order emphasized that an extensive police presence or an “army of police” should not invade institutions like the Isha Foundation without substantial grounds. This statement came after the court interacted with two women at the center of the controversy, who confirmed they were residing at the ashram of their own free will, countering claims made by their father, Dr. S. Kamaraj, a retired professor.
The issue began when Dr. Kamaraj filed a habeas corpus petition, alleging that his daughters, aged 42 and 39, were being held against their will. However, during the proceedings, both women appeared before the judiciary, either virtually or in person, and stated their voluntary stay at the foundation, seeking spiritual and yogic life.
Legal representatives for the Isha Foundation argued that the Madras High Court should have exercised more caution before ordering such an invasive investigation. This argument seemed to resonate with the Supreme Court, which has now asked for a detailed status report from the Tamil Nadu police.
The Supreme Court’s stay has been viewed by supporters on social platforms as a victory for the Isha Foundation, with many posts celebrating the decision with the phrase “Satyamev Jayate,” meaning “Truth alone triumphs.” Critics, however, argue this could potentially hinder the investigation into allegations against the foundation.
This case has drawn considerable attention due to the involvement of high-profile figures and the sensitive nature of the allegations. The next hearing date has been set, where further directions might clarify the scope of investigations into such institutions when personal freedoms and institutional practices collide.
The Supreme Court’s decision to intervene at this stage underscores the delicate balance between ensuring individual liberties and the oversight of institutions that claim to operate on principles of spirituality and volunteerism.
